Why Are My Blue Skies Coming Out Stark White Rather Than Pleasant Greys

Exhibition Card

A
Exhibition Card

  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
Flying Lady

A
Flying Lady

  • 3
  • 0
  • 33
Wren

D
Wren

  • 0
  • 0
  • 24

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
199,035
Messages
2,785,054
Members
99,784
Latest member
Michael McClintock
Recent bookmarks
0

Helge

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
3,938
Location
Denmark
Format
Medium Format
Yep, Helge, we certainly agree on that - it's one thing to get extreme density on a neg, but it can be a different thing entirely to bag it realistically as usable density. Besides, unless one is involved in scientific photography or something analogous, it's darn rare to even stumble upon a scene with a density range of 12 or more stops. But yup, I'm quite aware of what Googling the subject will come up with - among other things, what we in this country call a lot of malarky. I know what a densitometer is just as well as anyone else. Taming a curve on graph plotting paper or with a computer profiler is not the same thing as taming it on printing paper.
When printing stuff that dense you need to pull out all stops. Veiling and blooming in the enlarger is your first enemy. Burning and dodging is way too crude there.
You need to use pin registered masks. Either hand drawn or contact printed.

That’s one of the few advantages a drum scanner has today. IE. the small aperture, as the smallest “primitive”.
It is possible to camera scan that kind of negative too. Hard too though. But is it necessary to do them in the first place?
I guess it can have its place. But landscape photography is perhaps not one of them.

Slide is quite another story. And there are goody reasons to do B&W slide, apart from wanting to project.
 
Last edited:

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,391
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
Bingo! It was inevitable that eventually someone just had to bring up AA. Talk about stereotypes! But ya also have to recognize that how he did it doesn't necessary equate to how a lot of wannabee clones do it. Mere technique doesn't count. Everyone can read the how-to books; not many can actually sense the light to the same degree. Most go over the top and spoil it. Sure, I've got some prints in that vein. I've also got a lot that aren't. But having come from those mountains, I do have an appreciation for AA's sensitivity to the light n' clouds and so forth that many flatlanders and smog dwellers can't quite understand, cause they've never been absorbed into it, so to speak. So I really do get it. But if a scene in my mind works better taking a totally different approach, let's say, for example, a much more open sky with the sense of scale and atmosphere being accentuated by lightening it instead of darkening ala AA, then that's why I'll do, or even blank it out completely white for sake of graphic effect, much like the old blue sensitive landscape masters did.

My very favorite picture of all time of the El Capitan monolith in Yosemite was not any of the famous dark-sky ones by AA, but a totally blank sky version taken by Edweard Muybridge. It has an overriding sense of scale and monumentality bound to its sheer graphic simplicity, nearly white on white. My second favorite might be my own, taken on edge during a snowstorm from atop a high ice cone, which I chiseled off the top of with my ice axe for sake of my 4X5 tripod, itself with a white sky, but more silky and subtle in atmosphere, and silvery with respect to the granite, than Muybridge's version from down below. But I did bag the same impression of monumentality and sheer scale. I was there with my nephew when he was surveying his next intended climbing route up the Dawn Wall directly overhead, and only the third ascent of that extreme route ever.

But now that I brought up smog, and earlier made the statement that I've never seen a boring sky.... well, for months on end last year our skies were so filled with smoke as to obscure any kind of cloud detail. But there was an utterly magical property to it almost like an amber Godfather movie effect, yet with soft veiling yellow-brown haze doing amazing things with hues both natural and manmade, in a manner no mere camera filter could have done. But the air was just too unhealthy to do much outdoor shooting; and besides, all that fine white and yellowish ash raining down days on end would be terrible for camera equipment. My lungs hurt for weeks afterwards. So ya gotta pick and choose yer battles.

I have photographed many subjects that Ansel Adams had, but I set up the exposure and composition to suit me. I have used his photographs to understand why to set up the composition the way he did, once seeing he approach, I use that knowledge and consider it for my approach. Which are better, his, but I only work on satisfying myself.
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
14,007
Format
8x10 Format
Masking can easily go over the top too, Helge. But last week I went through quite a number of promising old 4X5 negs that I didn't know how to print effectively back then, and made registered masks for some of them. And in certain ways, I think masking still has fine-tuning control advantages which scanning and curve reconstruction in PS doesn't. But there's no choice if one is after optical silver prints per se, and the kind of toning nuance potential that comes with that.

One of my favorite tricks was to shoot HP5 at full speed in 8x10, and overdevelop it in staining pyro, while printing with a hard blue filter (conventionally, a terrible way to do it). But by factoring in a supplementary mask, I could have my cake and eat it too. Wonderful microtonal scale throughout, and exquisite edge effect almost as if etched (but not if I overdid it! - it was a delicate balancing act). Now I find TMY400 much more versatile, but still sometimes bring out detail and tonality in a special manner through masking. I did that once last week, but it was with a 4X5 TMX100 original neg instead.
 

Down Under

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Messages
1,086
Location
The universe
Format
Multi Format
No ozmoose, you didn't drill into a nerve. (etcetcetc - edited for clarity and for the sake of, yes, boredom!)

Woo hoo, I did drill into a nerve. Or someone fell out of the wrong side of the bed. Hey, isn't it summer up there? Grab a camera, go out and rejoice in those radiant green landscapes and blue skies with, one hopes, fluffy clouds to pad out the deep azures.

In the last century the Pictorialists had a bagful of handy tricks to "improve" sky scenes. Many of our vintage will recall the Kodak 'How To Take Good Pictures' series of (quite excellent) handbooks, which I recall recommended to put tree branches and leaves in the top part of our negatives to add hoopla to those otherwise "plain" (a nicer word than "boring", do you not agree, Drew?) skies.

The 1940s and 1950s camera magazines also had ads offering sky negatives one could use in the darkroom to double-print some nice clouds in lovely landscapes.

Drew's protestations to the contrary, I still believe most blank sky images will be greatly improved in printing by cutting them back to a minimum. Unless of course one is deliberately photographing flocks of birds, aircraft or a chance passing of the Hindenberg.

In the summing up, of course, landscape photography like most everything else in our free world, is entirely up to the photographer, who is free to include or exclude sky space in the final image.

Of course whether or not the rest of us will want to look at these images is another matter entirely and just as subjective. I now rest my case, and no further ongoing correspondence on this controversial issue will be entered into.
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
14,007
Format
8x10 Format
Stereotypes, stereotypes, ozmoose .... Stereotypes are themselves the trap. Don't blame the sky, either seemingly blank or otherwise, or confuse it with for a blank spot in the photographer himself. I never bought a single one of those how-to photograph nature books, by Kodak or anyone else. And thank God, I never went to an art school (my own aunt, who had a phD in art history, wisely recommended against it). I do have a number of old Kodak technical handbooks. And I don;t give a damn about "most". I'm not "most", nor does anyone else need to be. Predictable passe photographic trends have always existed, and always will. But don't blame a Stradivarius for violin music sounding bad if that particular instrument ends up in the hands of a sixth-grader in the local school marching band. Yes please rest your case ..... zzzzzzzzz. Please wake up without dubbed-in cloud negatives in minds. Thousands of even worse images are now concocted every day on industrial scale quantities using corny digital apps. That's not "atmosphere"; it's mindless default.
 

takilmaboxer

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
397
Location
East Mountains, NM
Format
Med. Format RF
Obligatory in a cynical sense because it seems to be another of the many things Adams popularized which basically became “de rigueur” in much of black and white landscape photography.

To quote Drew Wiley, “ho hum”. :smile:
Right. AA's one of the icons of modern photography, and you're making fun of him on the Net. Sounds like a prescription for success in the 21st century, eh?
With landscapes,
1. Be aware of what the sky is doing. Meter it for God's sake!
2. Have control over your process. Don't blow out the highlights. Easy to do with sloppy technique. Ask me how I know.
3. Practice, practice with filters, make several exposures, evaluate them on the negative. Print them and try again.
It's too easy to dismiss the landscape photographers of the past; today their work might seem cliche'd. Ya think it's easy, just try it. Try to put yourself in their shoes; slow films, big negatives, long exposures.
That's why when I look at images from contributors like Drew or Vaughn, I see guys who know what they are doing. How many negs did they throw away in order to get one great one?
 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
Right. AA's one of the icons of modern photography, and you're making fun of him on the Net. Sounds like a prescription for success in the 21st century, eh?

its too bad people can't have an opinion in the 21st century without someone getting all irate as if some sort of religious diety has been desecrated.
personally, I get kind of bored with the same old landscape photographs of people who look for Adam's or Michael Smith's tripod holes.
Im looking forward to when Atget, NADAR or David Benjamin Sherry's tripod holes will be looked for instead of a the same old red, orange yellow or polarizing filter.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,130
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,391
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
its too bad people can't have an opinion in the 21st century without someone getting all irate as if some sort of religious diety has been desecrated.
personally, I get kind of bored with the same old landscape photographs of people who look for Adam's or Michael Smith's tripod holes.
Im looking forward to when Atget, NADAR or David Benjamin Sherry's tripod holes will be looked for instead of a the same old red, orange yellow or polarizing filter.

Uh, then do not look and move on. No one has put a gun to your head to make you look. Just like I skip over the over sharpened over saturated crap that is posted on the internet.
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
14,007
Format
8x10 Format
Only an old timer would have seen even a token representation of my work on the web, back when everything was accommodated to much lower web speeds. I took down that site years ago. It was half color images anyway. It was an exceptionally well-done site for that era, involving one of the very best professionals in Silicon Valley. But one excellent lesson I learned from doing that, despite getting complimenting hits from nearly every country in the world, is that web surfers and geeks are one thing, actual print buyers a totally different category; and in the latter case, what moves them is seeing actual prints and not pixelated miniatures which can't possibly give an accurate representation of the nuances of tone and hue involved, and therefore defacto excluding any images too subtle to work effectively on the web - which rules out an awful lot of my own!

Now hyper-saturation and corny glitz seem to have taken over like a plague of locusts, with everyone crying for attention using cans of Krylon fluorescent spray paint, applied to their already overdone gimmickry. Someday I'll get my new copystand in operation for sake of cataloging my collection, and perhaps some of those digital records will spill over onto the web, but it's a very low priority for me now. For those of you who happen to assess the alleged virtue of specific imagery primarily over the web itself, I pity you !
 
Last edited:

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
Uh, then do not look and move on. No one has put a gun to your head to make you look. Just like I skip over the over sharpened over saturated crap that is posted on the internet.
I don't make it a point to look at that work, I don't go out of my work to seek it out and I typically ignore most all of it unless it is in some sort of discussion and a respondent has posted an image as a talking point. I do on the other hand look for as much DBS, Nadar, and Atget, as I can find. I have the complete oeuvre of the 2 frenchmen but DBS is a bit more obscure and hard to find. Their works are rewarding. Don't get me wrong im not saying that people who use panchromatic black and white film don't have it hard ( they don't ) but being the first aerial photographer, and mastering a medium that has a narrower latitude than slide film, and DBS well, his work is in a realm of its own...

OP do you have the image of your film handy yet?? did you figure out what was wrong?
 

Down Under

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Messages
1,086
Location
The universe
Format
Multi Format
its too bad people can't have an opinion in the 21st century without someone getting all irate as if some sort of religious diety has been desecrated.
personally, I get kind of bored with the same old landscape photographs of people who look for Adam's or Michael Smith's tripod holes.
Im looking forward to when Atget, NADAR or David Benjamin Sherry's tripod holes will be looked for instead of a the same old red, orange yellow or polarizing filter.

Me too. With one exception. I like the effect an orange filter adds to my B&W images. Otherwise, I'm with you all the way.

I too wonder how the OP has worked out his problem. OP, please post, and haul this thread back to the original topic.
 
Last edited:

grat

Member
Joined
May 8, 2020
Messages
2,044
Location
Gainesville, FL
Format
Multi Format
A cabal of (I suspect elderly) malcontents on this site seem to delight in leaping down the throats of anyone who dares express a contrary opinion.

You just described the internet, more than you did this site. Your comment is also ageist-- I've found there is no age range for self-righteous @$%%-heads. :smile:
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
2,760
Location
India
Format
Multi Format

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
14,007
Format
8x10 Format
Hmmm ... That's apparently what's left in the boneyard of my old site. Many of those images are 40 years old, and many were copystand repros of Cibachrome prints up to 30X40 inches. The old Contact page still works; and if you link onto that you will see an example of a "boring sky" that paid for my MF camera gear within 20 min of the gallery opening. And this was way back before people concocted such hues on PS. Actually witnessing and experiencing that kind of light for oneself is on a whole other level. I had mere seconds to expose it, so it was a handheld 6X7 exposure. But other than that one, and one image taken on 35mm Kodachrome, all the others of that former site, both B&W and color, were copied from actual prints derived from large format film originals, either 4x5 or 8x10.

Just a fraction of my personal collection back then, and far less a proportion now. Color slides were taken on the copystand, then scanned in a miserable early desk scanner, then off to the web designer, who cleverly adapted a couple images for sake of the overall background shading, which was an especially nice touch. The old Bio page also seems to work, although no images can be enlarged on this boneyard web archive basis. The snarky skeptics will be pleased that no boring sky black and white images can be retrieved at all. Of course, the real prints still exist.

On the Bio page there's also an extremely subtle white on white print that a number people coveted; but that is also a perfect example of how the web is such a miserably vehicle for representing fine nuances. Lesson learned as far as I'm concerned, especially since I have just a many subtle images as dramatic ones. Now direct digital capture on my copystand with a high- end DLSR will be a distinct improvement in that respect, but still a bellyflop as far as imagery like that is concerned. There's just no substitute for the real deal.
 
Last edited:

BrianShaw

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,540
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
LOL, this is an ”Analog” thread about blank sky. With all of that manipulation you’re talking Hybrid, graphic arts, rather than photography. Or am I just getting confused by a long-winded explanation? I’m struggling to understand how this relates.
 
Last edited:

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,391
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
LOL, this is an ”Analog” thread about blank sky. With all of that manipulation you’re talking Hybrid, graphic arts, rather than photography. Or am I just getting confused by a long-winded explanation? I’m struggling to understand how this relates.


Nailed it again!
thumbs up.jpg
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
14,007
Format
8x10 Format
Brian - There is ZERO, ZERO, ZERO digital work, hybrid or otherwise, in any imagery I do except for cataloging or secondary web applications. Everything on that old website was copied at faithfully as possible from actual optical prints, and the whole point is that the web is a ridiculously poor vehicle for assessing the quality or presenting the nuances of that. Very few people even owned digital cameras back then; and personal or amateur slide-scanners were themselves relatively new to the market. Am I dealing with some illiterates? Apparently so. Please try to expand your reading capacity to more than three lines. But thank you for making it so apparent which two people now belong on my Ignore List.
 

Pieter12

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Messages
7,635
Location
Magrathean's computer
Format
Super8
LOL, this is an ”Analog” thread about blank sky. With all of that manipulation you’re talking Hybrid, graphic arts, rather than photography. Or am I just getting confused by a long-winded explanation? I’m struggling to understand how this relates.
Maybe I missed something, but I don't recall reading about digital manipulation of the image. But there is so much extraneous BS in these threads today, I probably ignored it along with all the name-calling and ignorant rants.
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
14,007
Format
8x10 Format
Somehow people confuse the ability to think with rants. Guess that just comes with the territory of instant-everything these days. Easy in - easy out. Does anyone read books anymore? Or is that too hard? I'm out. Continue to throw spit wads at one another if you wish.
 

BrianShaw

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,540
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
Brian - There is ZERO, ZERO, ZERO digital work, hybrid or otherwise, in any imagery I do except for cataloging or secondary web applications. Everything on that old website was copied at faithfully as possible from actual optical prints, and the whole point is that the web is a ridiculously poor vehicle for assessing the quality or presenting the nuances of that. Very few people even owned digital cameras back then; and personal or amateur slide-scanners were themselves relatively new to the market. Am I dealing with some illiterates? Apparently so. Please try to expand your reading capacity to more than three lines. But thank you for making it so apparent which two people now belong on my Ignore List.
Thanks for that clarification. I completely misunderstood this part, "Color slides were taken on the copystand, then scanned in a miserable early desk scanner, then off to the web designer, who cleverly adapted a couple images for sake of the overall background shading, which was an especially nice touch.". Not too sure why you are getting butthurt, rude, and insulting over it... I was just asking a question. But I suppose I'm on your ignore list so you'll never see this until you decide to peek... which I'm sure you will if you haven't already. Have a good day, Drew.... sorry your blood pressure spiked.
 
Last edited:

BradS

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
8,120
Location
Soulsbyville, California
Format
35mm
its too bad people can't have an opinion in the 21st century without someone getting all irate as if some sort of religious diety has been desecrated...

As an outside observer, I'd like to suggest that you may benefit from taking a look in the mirror.
Maybe, try to realize that you too loose your shit when somebody else expresses their opinion (which you obviously disagree with).
It's just their opinion. It has nothing to do with you. It is not a threat to you. There's no reason for you to get your hair up and argue about it. It's just like, their opinion, man.
Your anger is your own poison.
 
Last edited:
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom